Master Thesis Direct Method

The Direct Method in Foreign Language Teaching in the Netherlands

Useful in Principle but Unachievable in Practice?

Marten Stoter 22-08-2006 Master Thesis

2

Table of Contents Introduction p. 3-5

Chapter 1: Theoretical Background of the Direct Method from ESL-Teaching

Introduction: p. 6 Krashen’s ‘Input Hypothesis’: p. 7-9 The Canadian ‘Immersion Studies’: p. 10-1 Noticing: p. 12-4 Teacher Talk: p. 15 -Characteristics of Teacher Talk p. 16-9 -Results of Teacher Talk p. 20-4 Conclusion: p. 25-6

Chapter 2: Theoretical Background of the Direct Method from FL-Teaching

Introduction: p. 27 Task-based Learning: p. 28-30 A Smart Pinball Machine: p. 31-2 CLIL/TTO: p. 33-6 Conclusion: p. 37 Conclusion p. 38-40 Discussion: p. 41-44 Points for Further Research: p. 45 My Research Plan: p. 46-7 Works Cited p. 48-9 Appendix p. 50

3

Introduction

On many occasions during the first year of the Masters-program for education and

communication the principle of ‘doeltaal = voertaal’ has been addressed during class. This

principle basically stands for teaching the Target Language (hereafter TL) by use of the

language itself in the classroom. The reason for this principle being addressed multiple times

is its suitability for the language classroom. This is because it is thought that when language

learners are orally exposed to the TL, they will acquire aspects of this language accordingly.

Moreover, this acquisition would occur almost automatically, without focusing on any

syntactical issues but purely being in a meaning-based setting.

Nevertheless, reflecting on the language teachers from my secondary school who used

a great deal of the target language in class were the teachers who would spend a large amount

of time supplying us (as pupils) with monologues in the target language which we did not

understand or were not willing to understand, or both. That is why it seems so odd that using a

great deal of the target language in class would almost automatically trigger language

acquisition. However, theory behind second language learning and teaching shows a clearer

view.

The theory behind the ‘doeltaal = voertaal’-principle comes from the ‘Direct Method’. This

approach dates back to the end of the 19th century when it was still thought that learning a

second language (hereafter L2) was basically the same as learning a first language (hereafter

L1). As children acquired their mother tongue only by use of oral exposure to the language, it

was hypothesized that adolescents or adults should also be able to acquire a second language

in the same manner. In other words, the ‘direct’ aspect in the term Direct Method (hereafter

DM) basically refers to the causal link between L2-input on the one hand and second

language acquisition (hereafter SLA) on the other.

Throughout the 20th century however it became more and more clear that learning a L2

is wholly different from learning a L1 and therefore should be approached differently.

Children seem to acquire their entire L1 within four to five years by only being exposed to the

language. Adolescents or adults need much more time to acquire the L2, who in most cases

eventually do not become a native speaker of the language. Furthermore, L2-learners seem to

need instruction in aspects of the language to acquire it at a faster pace. In short, purely

exposing learners to the L2 is hardly enough. Learners need to be aware of syntactical issues

4

of the language to make it less difficult to understand as well as learning its vocabulary.

Therefore, in a classroom setting the teacher should modify his/her L2-input and check

whether learners still understand this input.

This was exactly what went wrong with the teachers referred to above. A thirty minute

(formal) monologue in the TL was already difficult enough to follow, especially if the teacher

did not make it understandable in any way. Moreover, as the teacher did not check whether

we understood what has been discussed, we did not make a true effort to understand.

However, before blaming all teachers for poor use of the TL in a classroom setting one has to

give a closer look to the theory. Although teachers, SLA-researchers and theorists agree on

the benefits of using the ‘doeltaal = voertaal’-principle, theory behind this principle as well as

consistent theory behind the DM is difficult to come by and therefore remains mostly

undetected. This might make it more understandable for teachers being reluctant in using the

principle.

Unfortunately, the ‘Inspectie van het Onderwijs’ (Dutch educational inspection) have

indicated that the use of the TL in language classes in secondary schools is unacceptably low.

Dutch language-teachers are reported to use their mother language during class too much and

are strongly advised to utilise the target language to its full potential. Considering the above-

mentioned lack of research on the subject, it becomes understandable that most teachers

remain reserved in using the target language, as they do not know what type of approach

yields the best results. Is one simply to direct the pupil in the TL at all times or can the L1 still

fulfil certain functions in the language classroom? Can one address the pupils in formal TL or

does he/she have to ‘downgrade’ his/her language? If so, what can one do to modify the target

language in order to achieve the greatest language improvement in pupils?

The aim of this thesis is to present SLA-research which is relevant to the DM and therefore, to

the ‘doeltaal = voertaal’-principle as well as trying to discern what the advantages and

disadvantages of this method are to language teaching. This may provide an answer to its

practical failure in the Netherlands.

The thesis is divided into two chapters, of which Chapter 1 is dedicated to the

theoretical background of the Direct Method from ESL-research and Chapter 2 to the practical

application of this research to foreign language teaching. The conclusion incorporates the

discussions of the two chapters as well as including suggestions why the DM seems to have

failed in the Netherlands. This to answer the main statement of the thesis;

5

Although the benefits of using the Direct Method have been acknowledged theoretically, the

method has failed practically in the Netherlands.

6

Chapter 1: Theoretical Background of the Direct Method from

ESL-Teaching

Introduction:

A major flaw of the DM is the fact that its methodology has changed through decades and

therefore makes it unclear of what components the method consists in, apart from the simple

correlation that one completely relies on the TL for language teaching. For example, theory

behind the DM has originated almost completely from teaching English as a second language,

as theory on other languages as well as foreign language teaching is still rather slim. The ideas

being brought forth hereafter are considered universal however, i.e. also pertaining to other

languages apart from English and both second and foreign language teaching. However, this

may not always be the case, as e.g. second language teaching is in most cultures different

from foreign language teaching. This issue will be discussed more thoroughly in the

conclusion.

One important underlying idea in the DM which importance has been emphasized

throughout decades is the idea that learning a language is an innate ability and therefore

exposure to a new language would automatically trigger a process in the learner leading to a

grammatical system being made for this language. Therefore, a language learner would

generally only need exposure to this language for language learning to take place. This

approach has been referred to as the ‘nativist’ approach.

A nativist theory of second language acquisition (hereafter SLA) concerning language

exposure which has had a great influence on language teaching was brought forth by Stephen

Krashen in 1981. This theory is referred to as the ‘Monitor Model’. An important hypothesis

of the Monitor Model is the ‘input hypothesis’, which has been derived from Krashen’s

observations of caretaker speech, otherwise referred to as ‘motherese’1.

1 Motherese basically means the speech directed from adults towards children and is e.g. simplified and only referring to something which is happening at that particular moment.

7

Krashen’s ‘input hypothesis’:

At the core of Krashen’s input hypothesis lies the notion of ‘intake’. Intake, Krashen argues,

can be found in caretaker speech and can be described as “input that is understood” (102).

Furthermore, this aspect of “comprehension may be at the heart of the language acquisition

process”. In other words, Krashen argues that in order for language acquisition to take place,

one needs comprehensible input, or as he refers to it, ‘intake’ to start with.

The basic component of intake has become incredibly important in many theories on

second language learning. It is the first (necessary) component of e.g. the ‘task-based’ second

language teaching approach as well as many other approaches on SLA, learning and teaching.

This also includes the DM, considering the fact that in order to use the target language as the

language of the classroom; the teacher needs to make sure that the input he/she is giving the

pupils is being understood by them. This basic notion is very important, as pupils do not seem

to learn from language which they do not understand2.

Furthermore Krashen argues that if a second language learner is able to understand

intake directed at him/her, “perhaps we acquire by understanding language that is “a little

beyond” our current level of competence.” (103). In other words, acquisition appears when a

learner is confronted with elements he/she does not know already, but understands because of

what Krashen refers to as “the aid of extra-linguistic context or our knowledge of the world”

(103). This hypothesis is referred to as ‘i + 1’, where i stands for the learner’s current level of

language competence and the ‘+ 1’ stands for that part of the language which is understood by

the learner, although not yet acquired.

As with the input-hypothesis (mostly referred to as ‘comprehensible-input

hypothesis’), Krashen’s ‘i + 1’-hypothesis is extremely influential and returns in many second

language learning theories. These theories include the DM since in this method learners are

supposed to learn primarily from the language input directed at them. Therefore, the teacher

needs to make sure that the exposure to the TL he/she is giving the learners consists of

elements which have already been acquired by the learners, as well as new elements not yet

acquired, though understood by them. In order to include these known and yet unknown

elements and still make the language comprehensible, the teacher needs to adjust his/her

language. This language is referred to by Krashen as ‘modified speech’.

2 This notion will be discussed in the paragraph concerning Schmidt’s ‘noticing effect’.

8

Unfortunately, for a classroom consisting of circa 30 pupils, it is very difficult to

provide modified speech which corresponds exactly to all the learners’ level of language

proficiency, which Krashen also keeps into account. In his description of valuable exercises

which improve language acquisition, he argues that “analysis of what intake is predicts that

what is called “meaningful” and “communicative” drills or exercises can be more efficient in

producing language acquisition. [Even these] may have their limitations, however. Even if

they manage to hit the “next” structure (i + 1), which is unlikely for all students in a given

class, they may fail to provide enough input […] for language acquisition.” (104). In other

words, apart from noticing that not all pupils have acquired the same ‘i’ and therefore need

different ‘i + 1’, he also admits that “meaningful” and “communicative” exercises may not

provide pupils with enough input to trigger acquisition. What applies to these exercises also

applies to modified speech when the teacher adjusts his/her language. Here, this language may

be considered ‘i’ by one learner who will acquire nothing new, whereas it can also be ‘i + 1’

for another learner. However, this does not mean that trying to adjust one’s speech to match ‘i

+ 1’ is useless. Instead, it seems to imply that one may not reach every pupils’ ‘i + 1’, but

nevertheless one may reach the majority of pupils as classes in the Netherlands are still

(roughly) divided into age and level of competence. This is also acknowledged by Gerard

Westhoff in his article “Trends in Second Language Pedagogy”, where he argues that

although “long and fierce debates” concerning Krashen’s ideas have occurred, a general

agreement seems to exist in the recent scientific literature that being exposed to a rich foreign-

language input for a long period of time is imperative for language acquisition (1).

Considering the fact that the teacher is the primary source for language input, the learner

would learn mostly from the speech the teacher is providing him/her with. Although this

teacher’s ‘modified speech’ may not always be ‘i + 1’, trying to include new language

elements as well as returning to acquired language elements is thought to bring about the most

language acquisition in learners.

One of the above-mentioned “long and fierce debates” Westhoff might be referring to

is Krashen’s distinction between ‘learning’ on the one hand and ‘acquisition’ on the other. As

part of the Monitor Model, Krashen hypothesizes that learning (which can be explained as

conscious knowledge of the L2) can never become acquisition (which can be explained as the

subconscious knowledge used to produce L2-speech). “He cites as evidence for this that many

speakers are quite fluent without ever having learned rules, while other speakers may ‘know’

rules but fail to apply them when they are focusing their attention on what they want to say

more than on how they are saying it.” (Lightbown & Spada, 39). In other words, Krashen

9

asserts that learners may be able to reproduce the ‘learned knowledge’ of a certain language,

but cannot incorporate this into their natural speech production, as this speech production is

composed of ‘acquired knowledge’ which learned language rules will never become. In

addition one could say that conscious speech production is distinct from subconscious speech

production. However, the terms conscious/subconscious are prone to make the discussion

rather unclear, as different researchers have used the terms rather ambiguously. This subject

will return later on in this chapter.

10

The Canadian ‘immersion’-studies:

Krashen’s attribution to the discussion of input and intake brought forth work on a new

language method in the 1980s, called ‘immersion’. This pioneering language program did

away with all grammar instruction as well as any other instruction on language forms. Instead,

the program relied completely on comprehensible input by the teacher as found in Krashen’s

Monitor Model.

The most noted of all ‘immersion-programs’ is the one conducted in Canada by Merrill Swain

of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, with cooperation from other colleagues of

other institutes and universities. This program was designed for pupils with French as a

mother language who would (after a few years in school) become acquainted with a new

language; namely English. The idea was that this new language would slowly but surely take

over the task of the mother language, i.e. become the language of communication in the

classroom by the pupils. It was hypothesized that through this method pupils would learn the

second language at a much faster rate than pupils outside of this program and finally become

bilinguals.

Unfortunately, the predictions the researchers made concerning the program did not

correspond with the actual results and in these terms the program proved false. Although the

pupils inside the immersion-program did achieve a good level of language competence in the

TL, none of them could be considered an actual bilingual in any way. Moreover, a different

group of pupils who did not receive immersion in the English language achieved the same

level of competence (Genesee). In addition, side effects appeared in the primary group which

showed contrasts to the researcher’s expectations. For example, it seemed that “immersion

students […] increasingly avoid using their second language in peer-peer interactions as they

move into higher primary grade levels” (MLJ Reader’s Forum, 166). In other words, the

pupils would not let go of their first language very easily concerning communicative

purposes. This was in contrast to what was expected by the researchers, as the classes

themselves were completely conducted in the TL.

Although the initial Canadian immersion-program did not bring about the anticipated results,

there was one important prediction that did come out. This was the fact that both groups of

pupils which were tested (immersed pupils vs. non-immersed pupils) did achieve better

11

overall results than the control group3. Therefore, the researchers decided to continue working

on the program itself in order to finally come to a language program which would achieve the

anticipated results. Researchers Swain and Lapkin explain it as follows:

“It is important to understand the linguistic outcomes of […] immersion programs in

Canada within a historical perspective. Immersion programs […] did not produce

students who could comprehend and use French in authentic context. Immersion

program outcomes […] have shown that in most cases immersion students do

significantly better than core French students in all aspects of French language

proficiency.” (69-70)

In the meantime, successes in the immersion programs have been delivering a great

contribution to both the validity of Krashen’s theory as well as new initiatives in language

teaching. These are initiatives where the focus is not on grammar instruction anymore, but on

a classroom environment where communication in the TL is of primary importance. In this

case, the results from the immersion-studies are important to the DM, as it underlines the

assumption by empirical research that using the TL as the language of communication yields

better results in contrast to classrooms where the language is not given this primary role.

However, although the research (in combination with Krashen’s theories) has accelerated

studies in SLA, it has overlooked one aspect which is of primary importance in the language

classroom and more specifically, on proficiency by second language learners. This is the

aspect of ‘noticing’.

3 This group consisted of pupils who did not receive immersion in the English language and were additionally given grammatical instruction.

12

Noticing:

In the before-mentioned discussion on Krashen’s distinction between acquisition on the one

hand and learning on the other, it must be noted that Krashen’s reference of acquisition as a

subconscious process is somewhat confusing. This is because Krashen does not explain in

detail what he means with the terms ‘conscious’ and ‘subconscious’. Does consciousness

mean that the learner is aware of aspects of the TL or that he/she is making an effort to learn

something, in other words, is the learner intently learning something? This distinction is

important insofar as it has consequences for the language classroom. If the learner is simply

aware of something he/she has acquired, this has little to no effect on language interaction

he/she might be in at that moment. However, if the learner is intent on learning something,

he/she is not trying to interact but instead is working on learning that specific element.

Krashen is not alone in dividing language proficiency in terms of consciousness and

sub- or unconsciousness. According to Richard Schmidt in his article “The Role of

Consciousness in Second Language Learning” from 1990, many researchers and theorists in

the field of SLA

“believe that conscious understanding of the target language system is necessary if

learners are to produce correct forms and use them appropriately. [Although] there is

little theoretical support for the most traditional form of this view […] Baileystok

(1978) has provided a theoretical framework that allows a role for conscious

knowledge, and Rutherford and Sharwood Smith (1985) have argued that

‘consciousness-raising’, drawing learners attention to the formal properties of

language, facilitates language learning. Others firmly believe that language learning is

essentially unconscious. Seliger has claimed that ‘obviously, it is at the unconscious

level that language learning takes place’” (129).

It becomes clear from this quote that while Baileystok refers to “conscious knowledge” as

something a learner has intently learned, Rutherford and Sharwood Smith4 refer to it as an

element of awareness. Furthermore, Seliger believes that language learning takes place at an

unconscious level, while Krashen (as mentioned before) believes that learning is a conscious

process5. Lastly, it has been suggested that language learning may in turn serve as raising

awareness.

4 In addition, Sharwood Smith believes that when learners raise their consciousness, all input becomes intake. 5 Note here that Seliger and Krashen do share the same opinion, i.e. that language competence is subconscious. However, Seliger refers to this competence as learning, whereas Krashen refers to it as acquisition.

13

Amidst this confusion, Schmidt is trying to come up with a clear definition of what

consciousness means and what role it is assigned (if any) in the process of language

proficiency. He claims that consciousness can be divided into three categories:

“consciousness as awareness”, “consciousness as intention” and “consciousness as

knowledge”. Whereas consciousness as intention means that something is done intentionally,

consciousness as knowledge means that one picks up or is taught something about e.g. a

language or culture. For example; one can consciously bear in mind that an Australian might

say “How are you?” as an alternative to “Hello”, instead of truly asking how one is doing.

Krashen’s use of the term can be inserted here, as he discusses consciousness as knowledge of

the TL by the language learner, i.e. the learner having learned specific rules of the TL.

Schmidt asserts that consciousness as awareness is of primary importance to the

process of language learning. Although Schmidt notes that there are various levels of

consciousness, one level is of specific importance here. This is the second level, called

“Noticing or Focal Awareness”. This level, Schmidt argues, can best be explained by the

following example:

“When reading […] we are normally aware of noticing the content of what we are

reading, rather than the syntactic peculiarities of the writer’s style, the style of type in

which the text is set, music playing on a radio in the next room, or background noise

outside a window. However, we still perceive these competing stimuli and may pay

attention to them if we choose.” (132).

In other words, if we translate this example to language learning, a learner may normally be

involved in getting a message across to the teacher or a peer. In trying to get this message

across, the learner is not thinking of grammatical parameters or verb changes but composing

the message in such a manner that the teacher or peer is able to understand him/her. However,

the learner might also take note of these syntactic issues if asked. This aspect of taking note

(or one might say, looking at the input focusing on different aspects) then is ‘noticing’.

When returning to Krashen’s Monitor Model, this noticing might be an aspect of

language learning. However, Schmidt notes that noticing comes before any learning or

acquiring takes place. He assigns a place for noticing between input and intake as he argues

that “intake is that part of the input that the learner notices” (139). This idea is explained in

diagram 1.

14

Diagram 1:

Krashen: Teacher Learner Schmidt: Teacher Learner

Diagram 1 shows that Krashen sees the role of the teacher as someone who uses modified

speech to convert input to intake, which the language learner then acquires. Schmidt, on the

other hand, sees the role of the teacher only as someone who provides input. The learner

‘notices’ part of this input (which becomes intake) and only then acquires.

The aspect of ‘noticing’ may be somewhat difficult to place in terms of language

acquisition and moreover, concerning conscious vs. sub-/unconscious knowledge of a

language. However, the importance it displays in the language classroom is quite

straightforward. According to Schmidt, language learners ‘notice’ only a part of the input

directed at them. This part of the input, which Schmidt refers to as intake, enters the process

of acquiring. Although one might infer that since learners will only notice a part of the input

directed at them it is useless for teachers to modify their speech in any way, this is not the

case. Teachers can still modify their speech in such a manner that learners will notice the

majority, if not most of the input. Moreover, teachers can always inspect whether their speech

has been noticed by the learners by asking them if they understand or could repeat what

he/she has said. This in turn may trigger acquisition.

Input Intake Acquisition

Input Intake Acquisition

15

Teacher Talk:

In the 1980s, research on the topic of comprehensible input and ‘i + 1’ has led to a critical

review of the term ‘modified speech’. It has become clear from research on the subject that

there is general agreement on the meaning of the term modified speech, as it simply meant

speech originating from the teacher and adjusted to the learner’s level of language

competence. However, it remained obscure how a teacher needed to adjust his/her language in

order to match the learner’s language competence. In other words, in what ways is it possible

to modify one’s speech and what are the results of these modifications?

An important addition to this discussion was brought forth by Craig Chaudron in 1988,

in his book Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. In this book

Chaudron includes all the different studies conducted on modified speech and its outcomes.

In Chapter three of the book, Chaudron addresses the amount and types of modified

speech in second language classrooms, or as he refers to it, ‘Teacher Talk’. Chaudron explains

in this chapter that whereas “the initial approach of this research has been to describe the

features of L2 teacher talk which distinguish it from speech to L2 learners in noninstructional

settings[,] the main goal of this research has been to determine what makes teacher talk an aid

to learning.” (8). In other words, Chaudron’s main research question concerning teacher talk

is that “if input to learners must be comprehensible, what factors make teacher talk in

classrooms appropriate for L2 learners’ differing proficiency levels?” (8). An important point

which must be made in this discussion is the fact that many researchers have used the aspects

of ‘teacher talk’ as well as ‘modified speech’ as a fixed term. This means that researchers

believed that teachers would always modify their speech in the same manner, as seems to be

the case in ‘caretaker speech’ or the much referred to ‘foreigner talk’. However, Chaudron

argues that “differences [in teacher talk] are not systematic, nor are they qualitatively distinct

enough to constitute a special sociolinguistic domain. [Rather], it appears that the adjustments

in teacher speech to nonnative-speaking learners serve the temporary purpose of maintaining

communication.” (55) In other words, Chaudron notes here that teachers do not modify their

speech in the same manner on all occasions, but rather seem to pick out different

modifications of language in order to improve learner comprehension in that specific setting.

16

Characteristics of Teacher Talk:

Modifications in teacher speech

Pauses:

“One feature observed in several studies which contributes to overall rate of speech, but

which may independently aid learners’ comprehension and processing of specific words, is

amount and length of pauses.” (69). Chaudron divides pauses into two types; pauses

“intentionally made for comprehension” (70) or pauses resulting from a generally slower and

more articulated speech. However, it must be noted that some studies also indicated that

teachers may use pauses not primarily to improve comprehension, but to gather their thoughts

or for planning the lesson. Therefore, not all pauses could be included in the results.

Adjustments in phonology, intonation, articulation and stress:

Although different studies suggest that changes in phonology, intonation, articulation or stress

enhances the comprehensibility of teacher talk, Chaudron notes that the various differences in

the comparison groups in the mentioned studies presents too much diversity to make general

claims. Furthermore, “while the overall slower, accentuated speech likely enhances the

learner’s comprehension, other levels of linguistic adaptation (lexical and syntactic) are

probably equally if not more important in their effects” (71).

Modifications of vocabulary

Several studies mentioned in Chaudron’s book found teachers modifying their vocabulary to a

more basic set when teaching, especially in lower grades. For example; Chaudron mentions a

study by Henzl in 1973 and 1979 which proved that teachers used language which was more

“stylistically neutral” (i.e. less colloquial and more general; ‘woman’ instead of ‘gal’), which

included fewer idioms as well as indefinite pronouns and instead, more proper nouns. This

‘downgrading’ of language was also found in other studies, however without the same amount

of detail as in Henzl’s research.

17

Modifications of syntax

“By far one of the most investigated and quantified characteristic of teacher talk has been

teachers’ syntactic modifications. These can be grouped into five types: measures of length of

utterances, measures of subordination, measures of markedness, measures of grammaticality,

and measures of distribution of sentence types.” (75).

Measures of length of utterances:

The use of this measure, Chaudron notes, has been conflicting in different studies. The reason

for this may be due to differences in analysis. For example, some studies analyzed utterances,

while others analyzed complete sentences. Moreover, concerning the results, some studies

indicated that teachers used fewer words to beginning learners in comparison to advanced

learners or native speakers, while other studies did not find any differences. Lastly, one study

which included one English professor and one French professor has shown a significant

difference in the amount of words in the first teacher, but not in the second. In other words,

the studies conducted on vocabulary lengths, Chaudron argues, “should be viewed cautiously”

(77-8) as the results seem to be conflicting.

Measures of subordination:

Studies measuring the amount of subordination of clauses (or in other words, syntactic

complexity because of sentence-clauses) showed (as indicated above) different results. While

some studies did not find any differences in subordination in sentences when ESL-pupils were

addressed, others did. Moreover, in studies where different types of subordinate clauses were

investigated some researchers found that advanced learners were addressed with a greater

diversity in subordinate clauses, whereas other researchers did not find any differences.

Measures of markedness:

Although there is a great diversity as to the definition of ‘markedness’, the term can generally

be defined as certain words or structures to seem difficult for learners to acquire. Here

Chaudron mentions that the studies including measures of markedness did generally notice

that teachers did not use certain verbs and/or simplified use of other verbs. In contrast, present

tense (in comparison to past or future tense) seemed to be used more often in certain studies.

18

Although it can be generally noted that teachers seem to use less marked structures when

addressing (beginning) language learners, a general lack of systematic methodology makes

the studies very difficult to compare.

Measures of grammaticality:

An interesting observation in several studies was that many teachers or other native speakers

used sentence fragments when addressing language learners. The reason for this was

(according to Hyltenstam in 1983) that “fragments serve as elicitation devices, repetitions,

and so on.” (82). In other words, fragments were used because of the teachers’ pedagogic

approach.

However, ungrammatical language originating from the teacher was also observed in

several studies. Pica and Long suggested here that this ungrammatical language “appears to

have more to do with the general competence of the teacher than with the learners’

proficiency” (82). In other words, in cases where the teacher was not a native speaker, this

variable could be attributed to his/her level of language competence.

Measures of sentence type distribution:

“This final type of syntactic analysis concerns the relative use of declarative/statement forms,

interrogatives, and imperatives.” (82). It seemed that teachers, when addressing second

language learners, use more questions in comparison to native speakers. Moreover, teachers

seem to be more inquisitive to learners, especially concerning the degree of comprehension of

their speech. The researchers note that this has more to do with classroom pedagogy than

specifically with teacher talk.

Modifications of discourse

Self-repetitions

Several researchers found that self-repetitions of teachers were more common when language

learners were addressed than when native speakers were addressed. This amount of self-

repetition ranged from twice to seven times as much! Moreover, Ellis (1985) found a decrease

in frequency of self-repetition while observing over a long time span.

19

However, other researchers found no difference in frequency of self-repetitions,

neither between levels of experience of teachers nor the amount of time of teaching. Because

of this, self-repetitions are rather difficult to include in teacher talk.

20

Results of Teacher Talk:

Apart from characterizing teacher talk, Chaudron’s book also notes quite a few studies

dedicated to the results of teacher talk; i.e. in how far these adjustments have had a positive

influence on learners’ second language proficiency. However, it should be noted that

unfortunately these results do not correspond precisely with the above-mentioned

characteristics. This has to do with the fact that research on this subject (especially in the

1980s) is too broad to make valid claims on such specifics.

Rate of speech

Although specific studies in use of pauses and phonological adjustments were lacking at the

time the book was written, the book does include a study by Hatch (1983) which suggested

that an overall lower rate of L2 speech by teachers may have several benefits. The reason for

this, Hatch argued, was that a slower speech-rate allowed for more “processing time and

clearer segmentation of the structures in the input.” (154). This hypothesis was supported by

research from Kelch (1985) as “he found that University L2 students had significantly greater

success in dictation when the rate of speech of lecture listening passages was slowed down

from about 200 wpm [words per minute] to 130 wpm.” (155). More importantly, these slower

rates also approximated the general speech-rate to beginning language learners.

Apart from this, there was an interesting study conducted by Dahl (1981) on 16 L2

college students who were asked to judge comprehensibility in L2-speech. They appeared to

judge the more understandable messages to be spoken more slowly. However, the measured

speech rate did not support this notion. Dahl therefore argued that indeed adjustments in

articulation, phonology etc. may have caused this effectiveness. Although Chaudron notes

that more research is needed for a definite support of this theory, it does suggest that these

typical characteristics of teacher talk do improve learner comprehension.

Syntactic complexity and repetition

“Although the studies of degree of subordination [...] suggest that speech to lower-proficiency

learners tends to be simplified, research on [comprehensibility of such speech] is surprisingly

quite limited.” (155). Moreover, the studies conducted on this subject show conflicting

results. For instance, Michael Long (1985) conducted research on a lecture which was given,

first in a native speaker version and then in a ‘foreigner speech’-version. It showed that

students were able to comprehend more of the foreigner version than of the original.

21

However, it was unclear what the source was of this result. Moreover, a study by Fujimoto

which was a modification of Long’s study (two foreigner versions instead of one) also could

not answer this question. The only interesting result here was that both foreigner versions

(which differed in terms of lexical and syntactic simplification, as well as redundancy)

worked equally well. In other words, simplifying messages does seem to improve

comprehension, but it is unclear if this is due to syntactic or lexical adjustments. Moreover, a

study by Speidel, Tharp and Kobayashi (1985) showed that messages with “lesser complexity

alone does not result in significant improvement in reading comprehension; in most cases, it

was less effective than other passage versions.” (156)

The only tested modification which has shown a serious improvement in learners’

comprehension was that of repetition of information. However, instead of being a

characteristic by itself this is rather a link to ‘self-repetition’.

Other results

Apart from teacher talk, Chaudron also mentions two other factors concerning input which are

generally thought to improve learner’s comprehensibility. However, research has shown that

these two factors do not seem to improve comprehensibility or language improvement.

The first factor is not specifically a characteristic of teachers, but of learners. This is the

degree of participatory involvement in class. According to research conducted by Seliger

(1977), language learners who are so-called “high input generators” (100) generate more input

towards them and, as a consequence, show more language improvement than so-called ‘low

input generators’. However, a study conducted by Day (1984), showed that in fact high input

generators did not obtain greater language proficiency. Her study was a replication of

Seliger’s study, with a slight difference in methodology and a larger amount of persons being

tested. It is important to note here that one cannot ascertain from one study that such a

correlation between amount of input and proficiency exists or does not exist. This counts

especially for any causal relationship between input generation on the one hand and language

proficiency on the other, without considering other aspects of language competence (such as

language learning aptitude or attitude).

The second factor concerning language acquisition exhibits the same problem. “[Although]

the hypothesis that L2 learners acquire what they hear the most may seem tautologous [,]

extensive research on the acquisition of L2 grammar does not tend so support the notion”

22

(157). Here Chaudron replicates research conducted on ‘Morpheme Rank Orders’, which

means that certain grammatical morphemes are acquired before other grammatical

morphemes. Moreover, it was thought that every morpheme has a special ‘rank’, meaning that

one morpheme is harder to acquire than others (see the discussion of ‘measures of

markedness’). For example, it was thought by Krashen (who was one of the initiators of

research on these morpheme orders) that the copula would be acquired before the auxiliary

verb, followed by articles. However, every other study following from Krashen´s hypothesis

showed that articles would be acquired as the first of all the morphemes, whereas auxiliaries

would be one of the last.

The point to be made here is the fact that researchers were under the impression that

there was a direct correlation between what language learners had heard and what had been

acquired first. However, such a simple relationship proved false.

As almost twenty years have passed since Chaudron wrote his book in 1988, research in the

field of teacher talk has been advancing in the field of SLA6. For example, the focus on the

‘communicative classroom’ in the 1990s meant a great advance on this subject. This is also

acknowledged by Chaudron in an article he wrote in 2001 for the Modern Language Journal,

where he passed in review all the different eras in language teaching from 1916 to 2000. In

his paragraph “The Task of Teaching – The 1990s and Beyond”, he states that the “focus on

task performance in the late 1980s and 1990s has also inspired several more detailed analyses

of teacher talk than had been published before” (64). In other words, the focus on ‘task-based

learning’ in the 1990s also initiated greater focus on the communicative abilities of the

teacher and therefore, teacher talk. Whereas Chaudron only discussed material from the

Modern Language Journal, the subject of teacher talk has been investigated and published in

many other research journals as well. For example; Richard Cullen, writer for the ELT

Journal, has published several articles on teacher talk. However, in his articles, there is an

important deviation in description of teacher talk as apparent in Chaudron’s work. This is the

fact that teacher talk described by him not only implies ‘down-grading’ of speech by the

teacher, but basically any adjustment in speech made to improve comprehensibility by

language learners. This could be attributed to the increased attention on the communicative

classroom mentioned above. An example of one of these adjustments can be found in Cullen’s

discussion of the so-called ‘I-R-F-move’. This notion basically means that in a classroom

6 However, note here that although teacher talk has been receiving attention from second language teaching studies, it has not been receiving much attention in foreign language teaching.

23

setting, most dialogue is started by the teacher (Initiation), after which a response is apparent

from the pupils (Response) and finally a movement from the teacher following the pupil’s

response (Follow-up). Whereas Chaudron would have never included this ‘I-R-F-move’ in his

discussion of teacher talk, during the 1990s additions such as these have become more and

more apparent.

In addition to this, Cullen describes in another article different features of teacher talk

(following from work by Thornbury in 1996) which do not seem to be apparent in

descriptions found in the 1980s. These features include the use of ‘referential questions’,

where the teacher is addressing the whole class when asking a question and also the ‘echoing’

of pupils’ responses (which basically means a repetition of a response to stress its content)

(181-2). It becomes clear that the focus on teacher talk seems to have deviated from merely

being speech-adjustments to improve comprehensibility towards something described as

“communicative classroom talk” (181). This alteration of focus is also stressed by Herschel

Frey in his article “The Applied Linguistics of Teacher Talk” where he includes a definition

of teacher talk which can be thought of as typical of the focus on the “communicative

classroom” of the 1990s as well as the space it leaves open for teacher pedagogy.

“While my definition of “teacher talk” is broad, I exclude any of the familiar,

deliberately fixed or structured segments of a class, such as (pattern) drills, recited or

read dialogs, lists of questions, and so on. Activities that are not included in teacher talk

are, then, many of the predetermined activities that the instructor takes directly from the

textbook. Put another way, teacher talk is anything that the teacher says spontaneously,

without a script, the actual linguistic content of which is created to suit a particular

need.” (681).

An important aspect of teacher talk in the 1990s is a focus on feedback. The reason for this

importance lies in the fact that proper feedback on a pupil’s response improves the input of

the message and can therefore improve comprehensibility (and accuracy). Moreover,

feedback on responses may also trigger a greater amount of noticing. For example, returning

to the above-mentioned I-R-F-move, Cullen was the first researcher to focus on teachers

providing feedback in the ‘F-move’.

The overall spotlight on teacher’s feedback probably originated from the importance of

feedback in focus-on-form7, which was a principle originating in the late 1980s (as a reaction

7 This notion can roughly be explained as a focus on syntactical form of a language in a communicative context.

24

to the immersion programs which purely focused on language proficiency by use of speech)

and applied more thoroughly during the 1990s in the context of the communicative classroom.

However, in an article by Frank Morris and Elaine Tarone, the two authors describe

that in fact this communicative classroom may have a negative effect on language acquisition,

or more thoroughly, “stimulated recall revealed that negative feelings about their conversation

partners seemed to have caused some learners to interpret recasts8 not as helpful corrective

feedback, but as criticism and even mockery.” (325). Moreover, concerning Schmidt’s aspect

of noticing, the authors argue that “the social dynamics of the language classroom may in

some cases dramatically alter the way the cognitive processes of attention, or noticing, are

deployed in cooperative learning activities in which feedback occurs, and this in turn appears

to affect acquisition.” (325-6). In these cases, what can be applied to the language learner can

also be applied to the language teacher. This means that although a language teacher may

offer his/her pupils with proper and comprehensible input and feedback and moreover,

include all sorts of non-speech acts which also may improve language learning, this input may

not be considered by the learner because of (what the authors refer to as) ‘Classroom

Dynamics’. In short, learners may not notice some (or perhaps all) of the input directed at

them because of the atmosphere of the language classroom, which results in a decrease in

language acquisition.

Because of this (and the issue has been raised quite often in recent years), language

teachers should, apart from offering good input, also offer a learning environment where

pupils feel safe to interact with the teacher as well as with other learners, in order to process

the input directed at them and test their own language when they produce output of

themselves. This issue will be discussed more extensively in Chapter 2.

8 A recast is an immediate (mostly corrective) feedback on a learner’s output.

25

Conclusion:

There has been a great deal of research conducted on SLA and L2-teaching which is relevant

to language input by the teacher and therefore to the Direct Method. A central aspect brought

forth by Stephen Krashen in the beginning of the 1980s is the notion of ‘i + 1’. Here, the ‘i’

stands for the learner’s current level of language competence and the ‘+ 1’ for that which the

learner understands, but has not acquired yet. It is the teacher’s role, Krashen asserts, to

provide learners with ‘i + 1’ by use of modified speech.

Although this principle may seem difficult to incorporate in language classrooms,

evidence from (Canadian) immersion programs show that it is very much possible to use the

TL as the classroom-language without sacrificing SLA in pupils. Although the initial

immersion programs did fail to show a large increase in the learners’ levels of language

competence (which can mainly be attributed to the lack of grammatical instruction), later

programs did live up to its expectations and sometimes even beyond.

Apart from this, many conducted studies on modified speech or rather ‘Teacher Talk’

have also shown that adjusting one’s language in certain ways does yield better

comprehension in learners and subsequently, acquisition. This works especially if teachers

evaluate what has just been discussed by e.g. asking referential questions or asking learners to

repeat what has just been said. This in turn can also improve comprehension and acquisition,

as learners ‘notice’ more of what has been discussed. In other words, this research shows that

using the DM in a classroom setting is not only quite possible, but will also probably improve

comprehension, as well as acquisition of the TL.

Diagram 2

Input Intake Acquisition

Noticing

Teacher Talk

Output

Source for Feedback

26

Diagram 2 shows every step of what has been discussed so far, in order to provide a clear

foundation to place the practical approach to be discussed in Chapter 2, as well as any further

discussion.

The first step of the diagram is the change from input to intake. The input is, because

of teacher talk (or modified speech), adjusted into ‘ i + 1’, after which the process of noticing

modifies the input further. This input becomes the intake of the learner on to which the

acquisition device of the learner may produce so-called ‘uptake’; that what the language

learner actually has acquired. Then, this ‘uptake’ might optionally be used in the learner’s

output which then returns to the teacher. Lastly, the teacher may be able to use this output as a

possible source for feedback to the learner which then becomes input again.

27

Chapter 2: Theoretical Background of the Direct Method from

FL-Teaching

Introduction:

The discussed research conducted in the 1980s on ESL-Teaching has in the (late) 1990s been

translated to foreign language teaching. Especially the successes scored with immersion

programs in this decade have made researchers wonder whether this approach can be

incorporated into foreign language classrooms and if so, how. This interest in ESL and more

specifically the use(s) of the TL in ESL has in the Netherlands led to three different

theoretical approaches for teachers.

The first approach to be discussed originates from a major influence in language

teaching globally, namely the ‘task-based learning’ method. Here, learners are required to

participate more actively in class and need to rely heavily on the TL. This is because the input

they are receiving is in the TL as well as the output they need to produce themselves.

Therefore, this language teaching approach seems to be a solid foundation to work from using

the DM.

The second approach to be discussed is not so much a framework as task-based

learning is, but more of an accumulation of ESL- & FL-research which could aid teachers in

language teaching. In this approach, referred to as the ‘smart pinball machine’, there is again a

large emphasis on the TL and subsequently, the DM.

The final discussed foreign language teaching approach originates directly from the

(Canadian) immersion programs and has become very important in Europe. This approach,

called ‘Tweetalig Onderwijs’ (Education in Two Languages) greatly expands the use of the

TL as not only language classes are taught in the TL, but almost all classes in this specific

school curriculum. Because of this great attention to the TL, this approach relates most

directly to the DM.

28

Task-based learning:

As mentioned above, task-based learning and subsequently task-based teaching is an approach

which has become very prominent in teaching globally. The main reason behind this

importance might be found in the fact that task-based learning corresponds to recent trends

where instead of the teacher, the learner is given a central role. This central role involves e.g.

less dialogue between the teacher and a single pupil and more dialogue among pupils

themselves. In other words, pupils work more independently in this approach. This is also one

of the basic principles of the ‘2de fase’-method implemented in Dutch secondary education.

As the name already indicates, task-based learning evolves around a ‘task’ involving

language. This ‘task’ is not very different from any task which we present ourselves with in

our daily lives, apart from the fact that in order to finish this task the language in question has

to be used communicatively. In their book Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Bygate et al. define

a task in this context as follows:

“A task is an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to

attain an objective” (11). Although the authors continue to explain the term further from

different pedagogic perspectives (e.g. from a teachers perspective in comparison to a

researcher’s perspective), for this thesis the simple definition suffices as it illustrates how

general the term ‘task’ can be interpreted. In other words, a task can range from a teacher

asking a pupil how his/her weekend was to several lessons where pupils are supposed to

discover about sharks and its environment. Although the final objective of a task is of minor

importance, the definition stated above already indicates that the “use [of] language, with

emphasis on meaning” is assigned an primary role. However, how can teachers create proper

tasks with emphasis on meaning-focused language use?

In reply to this question, Jane Willis decided to bring forth a task-based learning

framework which enables one to create tasks which satisfies this demand. Moreover, her

framework seems to be quite a good bridge between theory and practice, as the so-called ‘task

cycle’ which it evolves around incorporates all aspects of task-based learning. These aspects

keep in mind four ‘conditions for language learning’ which are either essential or desirable in

a classroom setting (see figure 1).

29

Figure 1

The primary and essential condition according to Willis is “exposure to a rich but

comprehensible input9 of real spoken and written language in use” (11). Here she assigns an

important role for the teacher as a means of language exposure. Moreover, she also addresses

the issue of ‘teacher talk’ (although she does not name the term explicitly). However,

although she agrees with the benefits of “repeating, rephrasing [and] stopping to explain a

vital new word” (12), she seems to disagree on the notion of approaching learners with a

lower rate of speech. She argues that “there will […] be problems if everything is always said

very slowly and clearly, for there are likely to be distortions of common intonation patterns,

and learners will never get used to coping natural speech” (12). Although this notion contrasts

to research quoted by Chaudron, unfortunately Willis does not indicate where this belief

comes from. Moreover, it is quite unclear what she means with “natural speech”. It seems as

though here she aims at a ‘natural rate of speech’. Apart from this example however, her

arguments on the whole seem to follow logically from SLA theory.

Concerning the DM, Willis’ task-based learning framework is (as mentioned above) a solid

foundation to work from. She assigns an important role for the teacher to provide the essential

TL-exposure to pupils. Moreover, in her ‘task cycle’ the teacher returns multiple times as a

source of comprehensible language input. For example; already in the ‘pre-task’ pane the

teacher is supposed to “[explore] the topic with the class, [highlight] useful words and phrases

[and help] students understand task instructions and prepare” (38). During the rest of the task

the teacher is supposed to help pupils in different stages, be it planning, practice etc. This is

supposed to take place in the TL.

9 Her ideas behind ‘comprehensible input’ correspond to what has been argued in the first chapter of this thesis; namely modified speech which the learner may ‘notice’.

30

Although it may be difficult for a language teacher to continuously use task-based

learning in a classroom setting, when used it nevertheless seems a perfect starting point for

TL-use. Not only is it possible to address the class in the TL during the pre-task when the

teacher explains the topic of the task itself; the teacher can always use the TL during the task

itself and in evaluation of the task. This is mainly because he/she is only helping the pupils by

use of the TL, instead of explaining in detail different aspects of language. This will most

likely lead to a higher amount of comprehension/noticing of the input directed at the pupils as

this TL-use pertains directly to the (finishing of) the task at hand. In the words of Bygate et

al., the teacher uses the TL communicatively, “with emphasis on meaning, to attain an

objective”. Moreover, if the teacher notices that different pupils seem to struggle with a

certain language issue, he/she can still decide to address this problem in class. Lastly, because

a teacher is communicating with pupils in a meaning-focused manner, he/she will be able to

obtain a better idea of what the level of competence of the learners is, which would make it

easier to address them with ‘i + 1’-speech.

31

A Smart Pinball Machine:

In the before-mentioned article “Trends in Second Language Pedagogy”, Gerard Westhoff

follows recent theory in SLA which has been or will probably become implemented in the

language classroom. From this theory he also creates a sort of task-based framework (see

figure 2) in which language activities can facilitate learner’s language acquisition. He refers to

this framework as a pinball machine, where the learner is the pinball itself and the teacher the

builder of the machine as well as the person in charge of the buttons. “The longer the ball is in

the machine, the higher the score” (1). Although Westhoff notes immediately after this that

“we know very little about which contacts account for that score”, it is nevertheless the

teacher’s job to keep the ball rolling and hitting different contacts.

Although Westhoff’s pinball machine differs on several points to Willis’ task cycle

(for example, Willis notes that learner motivation is essential, while Westhoff does not

address learner characteristics at all), they both assign a crucial role to TL-exposure. Westhoff

asserts as follows: “without extended exposure to a rich10 input, there is little SLA” (1).

Needless to say, the primary source for extended input is the TL-input provided by the

teacher. Although the article mainly focuses on language activities and the effect these

language activities may produce, the author does mention TL-input by the teacher indirectly

as he argues that “CLIL, bilingual education [and/or immersion] provide us with a very

powerful tool to organize foreign language learning in an effective, attractive and efficient

way” (5).

There is one final issue addressed in this article (as well as in Willis’ ‘conditions for

language learning’; see figure 1) which is of importance to this thesis’ topic. This is the role

of a learner’s output. Apart from the fact that output seems to enhance fluency and that it

makes learners conscious of their level of language proficiency, it “contributes to form-

orientation and gives the teacher […] the opportunity to give corrective feedback” (2). As

noted at the end of Chapter 1, if the learner notices this feedback or at least notices that his/her

output differs from that which he/she receives from the teacher or peer respectively, it may

serve as intake. Henceforth, it is important that the teacher provides time and a safe

environment for learner output, be it directed at him/her or at other pupils in the classroom.

10 Whereas the input Westhoff refers to complies with Krashen’s input-hypothesis, the term ‘rich’ refers to language that has a great variety of aspects, such as language from different domains or with different syntactic structures.

32

Exposureto INPUTExposureto INPUT

MEANING focussed

processing

MEANING focussed

processing

FORM focussed

processing

FORM focussed

processing

OUTPUTproductionOUTPUTproduction

CreativeSpeech(chuncks)

CreativeSpeech(chuncks)

FormulaicSpeech(rules)

FormulaicSpeech(rules)

Use of

STRATEGIES

Use of

STRATEGIES

receptivereceptive

productiveproductive

Figure 2

33

CLIL/TTO:

Research in immersion and bilingual education has in Europe led to initiatives concerning

language teaching in which the second or foreign language is assigned a much more important

role. For the Netherlands, this has resulted in an initiative called ‘Tweetalig Onderwijs’

(hereafter TTO) during the beginning of the 1990s. This TTO, which basically means

education in two languages, bears close resemblance to immersion. The difference however is

the fact that unlike the immersion studies in the 1980s, TTO does not reject instruction in a

language and moreover does not rely purely on comprehensible input. In contrast, TTO is an

approach where there are no notable changes in the school curriculum itself, apart from the

fact that all subjects are now taught in two languages instead of one; Dutch and English.

Since its start the amount of schools which offer TTO11 has already risen to

approximately 80 and every year new schools are added to this list. Because of this large

amount of schools participating in TTO-projects for quite a long time, we can distinguish a

very clear pattern of development in these schools offering TTO. This pattern involves

moving away from purely offering their pupils material in the second language and qualified

teachers towards an approach where the impact of the teacher’s pedagogy on the pupils is

given a more prominent role (de Graaff, 2006). Therefore, the more broader term ‘Content

and Language Integrated Learning’ (hereafter CLIL) is being referred to more and more, as

this term also includes other aspects of language teaching apart from the language itself.

The term CLIL can best be explained as an “integrated approach to both teaching and

learning, requiring that teachers should devote special thought not just to how languages

should be taught, but to the educational process in general” (Eurydice, 7) This implies that

subjects are not only “taught in a foreign language but with and through a foreign language”

(7). Because of this approach, CLIL relates most directly to the Direct Method. In fact, CLIL

basically is the DM with the important difference that CLIL covers an entire school

curriculum whereas this method is restricted to the language classroom. Nevertheless, the

same aspects are apparent in both approaches. As shown in Chapter 1, teaching a TL in the

TL does not simply imply using the target language in many if not all occasions in the

language classroom. Instead, the approach means using the TL as the main source of

comprehensible input by means of modifying it, providing a classroom environment where

learners feel safe to produce output in the language and to use this output as comprehensible

11 This includes the VWO, HAVO, VMBO or MBO level.

34

input again. In other words, it is a total approach which, like CLIL, means teaching the

language “with and through the language”.

The perfect link between CLIL and the DM should make it easy for language teachers to find

theory pertaining to both of these principles. Additionally, considering the fact that research

on TTO/CLIL is conducted empirically instead of purely being on a conceptual level shows

its importance to the foreign language classroom. Subsequently, the practical application of

CLIL in the Netherlands should also make the practical application of the DM easier.

Moreover, teachers are able to use the pedagogy involved in CLIL for teaching the TL in the

TL.

This is also exemplified by Loes Coleman and Bert Weltens, who have written an

article called “Classroom English: Engels als Doeltaal én Instructietaal” which not only

discusses theory behind TTO/CLIL (including Krashen’s input-hypothesis, Swain’s output-

hypothesis as well as Schmidt’s ‘noticing’), but additionally translates this theory into three

practical techniques to be used in the language classroom (see Appendix). The first technique

discussed concerns ‘verbal strategies’, to be subdivided into ‘redundancy’ and ‘adjusted

language use’. Basically these ‘verbal strategies’ correspond to teacher talk, considering the

fact that they include the same kind of adjustments found in theory discussing teacher talk.

However, apart from logical sppech adjustments such as repetitions and providing examples,

they also include syntactic adjustments which in ESL-theory were not shown to improve

comprehensibility12. The reason for these additions which were proven false to be apparent

here may have something to do with the lack of attention teacher talk has been receiving in

the Netherlands.

The second technique concerns ‘non-verbal strategies’, subdivided into ‘countenance’

and ‘contextual support’. Countenance logically includes body language but more

importantly, rate of speech (or as they refer to it: ‘variation of speech’) and intonation. These

last two are again found in ESL-theory in discussions on teacher talk as they are mostly

assigned a verbal role. Contextual support basically means any other resource outside the

teacher, such as input through film/video and support from e.g. blackboards and overhead-

projectors.

The final technique, referred to as ‘other strategies’ consists of strategies which cannot

be headed under verbal/non-verbal strategies. The subdivision of this technique consists of

12 This subject has been discussed in Chapter 1, concerning ‘Teacher Talk’.

35

‘clear structure’, ‘control of meaning’13, ‘connecting old and new’ (building on what the

teacher has done in a previous lesson) and ‘improving output’ by means of pair-work and

interaction.

These three techniques should be easy for teachers to incorporate in their lessons and

refer back very clearly to the theory discussed in the article on CLIL.

In addition to this article where ‘strategies’ are given to TTO-teachers in order to improve

their teaching practice, Rick de Graaff and Gerrit-Jan Koopman have also produced a study

concerning this topic. However, their study focuses more on observed teacher pedagogy in a

couple of secondary schools in the Netherlands and to what extend this pedagogy improves

learners’ language proficiency in a classroom. Incorporated in this study is an ‘observational

instrument for effective TTO-pedagogy’ which basically is a list of teacher-competences,

derived mainly from CLIL-theory and the components of Westhoff’s pinball machine (see

figure 2 of Chapter 2). Concerning exposure to input however, the authors do not seem to

focus on the input the teacher is providing learners with, but more on material the teacher has

selected14. Nonetheless, under the heading ‘tuning’ it is explained that the teacher must use

whatever means to make his/her produced (English) language ‘i + 1’ (21). Explanations and

examples of means to enhance a teacher’s language then are incorporated in appendix one and

three of the study.

In appendix one, concerning ‘tuning’, it is stated that the “teacher clarifies the

substance of his own language use by means of (new) words, summaries, paraphrases and

gestures”. In other words, the authors seem to note that the teacher here needs to make use of

the verbal and non-verbal strategies included in the article above and because of it, teacher

talk.

In appendix three, four tips are given to enhance “spoken language”. Apart from tips

where providing pupils with ‘i + 1’ and using teacher talk are included, an interesting addition

here is the incorporation of “[checking] if the learners have understood instructions, e.g. by

asking a learner to explain what they should do”. In other words, the teacher tries to discern

whether the pupils have ‘noticed’ the input given to them and moreover, provides a moment

for output of the pupils which can possibly be used as feedback. This complies which what

has been discussed in the conclusion of Chapter 1. The use of feedback also returns in tip no.

4, where teachers are supposed to “ask the learners for feedback [on the teachers’] own tempo

13 This notion basically refers back to ‘noticing’ 14 This focus on material is also apparent in Willis’ ‘task-based framework’.

36

and use of English”. In other words, yet again the teacher provides pupils with a moment for

producing output and to check whether his/her own input is ‘i + 1’ or not as well as checking

to what extend his/her rate of speech improves comprehensibility.

In short, these two articles serve as examples of practical applications of TTO/CLIL

theory. Considering the attention CLIL has been receiving recently, there are undoubtedly

more articles to be expected on the subject, which will probably also pertain directly to the

DM and can therefore be used by teachers to improve their TL-use.

37

Conclusion:

There have been quite a few recent initiatives concerning language teaching which have their

effect on the use of the TL in class. Whereas the task-based learning approach provides

teachers with a solid framework to base their teaching on, Westhoff’s pinball machine also

presents the theory behind this approach. Furthermore, the TTO/CLIL approach originating

from the immersion programs have been extremely influential in language teaching in the

Netherlands and moreover, TL-use. This approach not only provides teachers with a

theoretical foundation to work from, but there are also several articles relating to the practical

application of this theory. However, a critical note must be made here concerning the

usefulness of some of the tips to improve one’s language teaching. This is the fact that not all

verbal modifications originating from the teacher have been shown to bring about the

anticipated results, which is explained in theory on Teacher Talk. Nonetheless, most of the

practical tips which are brought forth are more than useful in the teaching practice and will

certainly improve both the quality and quantity of TL-use.

38

Conclusion

Although the methodology of the Direct Method has changed throughout decades, there are

certain theoretical elements which have remained. The reason for this is the fact that the

hypotheses behind these theoretical elements have been proven valid when (empirical)

research on them was conducted. A central aspect here is Krashen’s ‘i + 1’-hypothesis which

regards providing L2-learners with correct input. The ‘i’ referred to here means the learner’s

current level of language competence, whereas the ‘+ 1’ means that which is comprehended,

though not yet acquired by the learner. Comprehension, Krashen asserts, occurs here because

of “extra-linguistic context or [...] knowledge of the world” (103) the learner has incorporated.

The ‘i + 1’-hypothesis has become a great influence on second language

learning/teaching worldwide and has been the central component of immersion-programs,

where pupils are ‘immersed’ in the second language. In other words, these immersion

programs are the most basic application of the DM, as the second language becomes the

classroom-language instead of the first. Unfortunately the predictions made on the initial

programs have been proven invalid, which were mainly attributed to the lack of grammatical

instruction. However, later programs with changing methodology did acquire the anticipated

results (and beyond) and therefore became a huge success.

An aspect of Krashen’s ‘i + 1’-hypothesis which was also an important aspect of the

immersion programs is the use of ‘modified speech’. This term basically means that teachers

need to adjust their language (i.e. input) to make it conform to the pupil’s level of

competence, as well as being “a little beyond” (103) that. In follow-up to this, there has been

a great deal of research conducted on aspects of modified speech, or rather ‘Teacher Talk’.

Craig Chaudron has included these pieces of research in the 1980s in a book on language

teaching research. Interestingly, there were some ways in which teachers seemed to modify

their speech that did and some that did not improve a learner’s comprehension. For example, a

lower rate of speech seemed to be very helpful on all occasions, whereas syntactic

simplification sometimes acquired the opposite effect. Although Chaudron’s book dates back

to 1988, in the 1990s ESL-research on Teacher Talk has been continued where also more

attention was given to teaching pedagogy and the role of language herein.

An important aspect of TL-use which therefore also applies to the DM is the aspect of

‘noticing’. The idea here is that although teachers modify their speech in order to improve

comprehension, learners may not notice all of this input directed at them. Instead, it seems

39

that learners only notice a part of this input, which can subsequently be improved when

learners raise their awareness of the TL. This process of ‘awareness-raising’ can also be

brought about by the teacher when asking pupils what he/she has just discussed or moreover,

repeat what has been said. Not only does the teacher in this manner acquire an idea of what

the pupils’ awareness is of his/her speech, it may furthermore give a clearer idea of what the

level of language competence of the pupils is. This in turn may lead to the teacher improving

‘ i + 1’ directed at the pupils (see diagram 2 of Chapter 1).

The theory discussed above has been incorporated in important foreign language teaching

methodology of recent years. Of these, three pertain directly to the use(s) of the TL and

therefore, the DM.

The first teaching methodology is the task-based learning approach. In this approach,

one of the three essential ‘conditions for language learning’ as argued by Jane Willis, is

“exposure to a rich but comprehensible input of real spoken and written language in use” (11).

Needless to say, the primary source of “real spoken” and “comprehensible” TL is the teacher.

Additionally, Willis explains in her framework for task-based learning how to modify one’s

speech in order to make it ‘i + 1’ as well as expanding on occasions to use the TL in a

classroom setting. Because of this, her framework works as a solid foundation to work from

when using the DM.

In addition, Gerard Westhoff has also created a theoretical framework which bears

close resemblance to Willis’ task-based learning framework. More importantly, Westhoff and

Willis both agree on the fact that teachers are a prominent source of input and that this input

must be adjusted in order for comprehension and acquisition to take place. In addition to

Willis however, Westhoff also makes mention of the promising results of the third discussed

L2-teaching approach, namely TTO/CLIL.

Whereas the term TTO (Education in Two Languages) only seems to imply using the second

language to teach a subject, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) also goes into

teacher pedagogy in order to make his/her input more comprehensible and likely to trigger

acquisition in learners. In other words, learners are not just given subjects in the TL, but with

and through the TL. This approach relates most directly to the DM, as it not only gives the TL

the most prominent role inside the classroom, but expands over most of the school’s subjects.

Therefore, the best manner of including the Direct Method in foreign language teaching is

basically CLIL.

40

Considering the direct relation between CLIL and the DM, theory and research

conducted for CLIL naturally also applies to this approach. In Chapter 3 two articles are

discussed which provide teachers with tips and methods in order to make CLIL a success in

the classroom environment. One of these articles also supplies teachers which a clear

theoretical background of the practical approaches. Therefore, teachers trying to apply the

DM can easily refer back to these articles as well any as articles bound to appear (considering

the attention CLIL has been receiving). In contrast to this, the DM may also serve as a

stepping stone for both teachers and learners towards TTO or CLIL.

41

Discussion:

In reaction to the implementation of TTO (and indirectly, CLIL) on schools in the

Netherlands, investigation on its results has been taken place a few years ago by the ‘Inspectie

van het Onderwijs’ (Dutch Educational Inspection) as well as the ‘European Platform for

Dutch Education’ in cooperation with the ‘Network TTO’15. It probably comes as no surprise

that they ascertain that in practice, interaction between teacher and pupils in the L2 is rare.

Although it has been noted that a great deal of interaction in the L2 in TTO-classes is

possible, pupils seem to fall back on to their mother language too easily. Moreover, when

conversing with pupils about this contradiction, they think it strange that they are allowed to

converse in their mother language (Edelenbos et al., 83). Needless to say, what counts for

TTO-classes counts even more for regular language classes. Concerning the lower grades of

secondary school (basisvorming), the Educational Inspection have noted that although the use

of the DM is part of the language pedagogy nowadays, in practice only a third of the schools

investigated are thought to apply this successfully. Especially the use of French and German

by teachers and pupils is thought of as disappointing and in need of improvement (Inspectie

van het Onderwijs, 1999).

Although the article by Edelenbos et al. also notes that there is agreement on the

benefits of the DM, there is a lack of studies where the effects of this principle are tested

concerning foreign language teaching. In other words, Edelenbos acknowledges that although

teachers are told that they are too reluctant to use the TL consistently in class, they are not

told how to go about this. The reason behind this assumption probably is the fact that research

is indeed lacking on the DM (or ‘Doeltaal = Voertaal’) in foreign language teaching,

especially focused on the Netherlands. However, as noted above, research on TTO/CLIL is

capable of intercepting these issues.

Why has the DM nevertheless failed in foreign language classrooms in the Netherlands? Is it

because teachers do not come across theory behind this principle or any of the discussed

theoretical frameworks? This seems very unlikely, as e.g. the ‘Network TTO’ continually tries

to provide teachers with handles to improve interaction in the TL. Additionally, concerning

15 The ‘European Platform for Dutch Education’ is an organization which aims to improve language education by strengthening European relations, whereas the ‘Network TTO’ is a network of all schools participating in TTO which also aims at improving TTO-education in secondary schools.

42

task-based learning, it has been noted before that this theoretical framework has already been

incorporated practically in many Dutch secondary schools in one way or another.

Nevertheless, there are certain factors known to interfere with the language classroom.

For example, Hermans et al. conducted a study on teaching beliefs by foreign language

teachers in the Netherlands and the impact this has on their language classes. These

researchers interviewed two teachers with different approaches to the language classroom and

the effect these approaches had on teacher-pupil interaction. It was shown by their study that

teacher Henry, who was interviewed first, did not achieve much interaction between him and

his pupils because of the ‘expert-role’ he assigned himself. Because Henry felt that learning a

language meant learning the rules of the language and not using the language itself, he did not

interact with his pupils much. Instead, he gave them grammatical instruction in order for the

pupils to slowly learn how to make grammatically sound sentences. In other words, he

argued: “if they don’t know how to produce a sentence, how can you expect them to talk?”

(13).

The teacher who was interviewed second, namely Len, had a completely different

approach. He believed that using the language is important and that making mistakes is not at

all a problem as it is part of the learning process. He, in comparison to Henry, achieved a

great deal of interaction in class because of this approach.

It may have become clear that when incorporating the DM in both language

classrooms, teacher Len would probably achieve more TL-interaction between him and the

pupil(s) than teacher Henry would, concerning his personal teaching beliefs.

Although the beliefs of teacher Henry will probably not have much following (especially not

among teachers with knowledge of SLA-theory), the issue becomes more intricate when

teachers who are being acknowledged for their good teaching practice are being enabled to

express their personal beliefs. These beliefs may not correspond to the theory or become open

for personal interpretation, subsequently straying further away from proven facts. An example

of this can be found in Joop van Schaik, who is a teacher of the French language as well as

author of two French teaching-methods. Concerning the DM, there are two contributions by

van Schaik in the prominent Levende Talen Magazine, one where a journalist of this magazine

follows van Schaik’s classes for a day and one where van Schaik himself explains his view on

the DM-approach.

In the first article a thorough reader is able to find most (if not all) of the elements

concerning the DM. For example; van Schaik interacts in the L2 in the classroom almost

43

continuously, trying to modify his speech continually. Moreover, he even seems to

incorporate aspects of the task-based learning method, as pupils are also enabled to produce

output on several occasions during class and he seems to give pupils ‘instruction’ in the

manner discussed by Willis (see figure 1 of Chapter 2). All in all, van Schaik’s lessons seem

to be a noteworthy example of how the DM can be incorporated in class.

Unfortunately, in the second article, van Schaik explains his teaching method

somewhat generally and because of this the article becomes open for personal interpretation.

Although it is quite understandable if van Schaik’s goal here mainly is to provide teachers

with general tips to improve their teaching practice, these tips can be interpreted wrongly. For

example; van Schaik indicates quite early in the article that teachers can be consistent in using

the target language from day one when conforming to certain conditions (10). These

conditions however, have nothing to do with the pedagogic abilities of the teachers

themselves but instead, focus on the teacher’s language abilities or the teaching-method.

Therefore, in principle any native speaker with a good teaching-method seems to be able to

use the DM, which cannot be what van Schaik is trying to bring forth.

Furthermore Paul Goossen, teacher of the German language, indicates in an article

appearing in the same magazine that using the TL too drastically, too much and too early has

a negative effect. Therefore he argues that using the DM from day one does not seem like a

good idea to him (9). Although he indicates that other teachers might be able to use it in

certain classes and by using certain pedagogy, he nevertheless approaches the principle

differently.

Finally Dorette Zwaans, in a column in the same volume Goossen contributed to (only

10 pages further), asserts that teaching the TL in the TL needs to be performed consistently

and moreover, from day one (21). Her argument however, relies solely on the language

abilities of her 4 year-old nephew, whose language abilities are completely irrelevant here

concerning the fact that he is learning a first language, not a second.

Apart from the teacher’s personal interference with the DM, a contribution made by Wim

Luteijn in Levende Talen Magazine indicates that the modernization of the Dutch educational

system (i.e. the ‘2de Fase’) seems to make it more and more difficult to use the TL in the

language classroom, as the introduction of ‘reading strategies, ‘guessing abilities’, ‘working

independently’ etc. seem to assign the most prominent role to the mother language. This

argument can be underlined looking at the work- and textbooks of foreign language methods

used in the ‘basisvorming’. All of these methods take the mother language as starting point, as

44

most of the assignments include questions posed in Dutch and leave room to answer in Dutch

as well. Although it must be noted that the DM is mainly a question of oral use of the TL,

these foreign language methods do seem to make it easy for pupils to fall back onto their

mother language. Fortunately, a trend can be discerned in foreign language methods

nowadays where more and more attention is given to the TL.

45

Points for Further Research:

Although the above-mentioned teacher beliefs and teacher interpretation may be an important

argument for the lack of TL-use in Dutch foreign language classrooms, there is hardly enough

research conducted in order to prove the argument (in)valid. For example, the research

conducted by Hermans et al. needs to be magnified, involving more teachers in the study

coming from a multitude of different schools with different perspectives on language

learning/teaching. In this case one may be able to discern specific trends of TL-use in

language classrooms because of teacher beliefs.

Secondly, research needs to be conducted on TL-use in foreign language methods and

the impact this has on TL-use by pupils in the language classroom. In other words, if work-

and textbooks include many assignments where the mother language is taken as the starting

point, how easy is it for pupils to fall back onto this language in the classroom?

Thidly, research conducted on TTO/CLIL also needs to be translated to the use of the

DM on schools not participating in these programs. There are many useful tips and

approaches found in TTO/CLIL research which can substantially help out teachers struggling

with using the DM in their language classroom. Additionally, schools considering

incorporating TTO/CLIL to their school curriculum can already use these tips in their foreign

language classes as a stepping stone to further implementation of TTO/CLIL.

Finally, researchers also need to strive to convert SL-research to FL-research. There

are important aspects discussed in ESL-research (a.o.) which also applies to foreign language

teaching. For example, research on Teacher Talk is of the utmost importance to discover how

teachers can modify their speech in order to make it comply with ‘i + 1’. Therefore, studies

conducted on different aspects of Teacher Talk and its usefulness are more than welcome for

TL-use in foreign language classes.

46

List of Works Cited “Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe.” Brussels: Eurydice, 2006. Barnwell, David. “Second Language Classrooms.” Rev. of Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning, by Craig Chaudron. Modern Language Journal 72.4 (1988): 458-9. Bygate Martin, Peter Skehan and Merrill Swain. Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited, 2001. Chaudron, Craig. “Intake: On Models and Methods for Discovering Learners’ Processing of Input”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7.1 (1985): 1-14. … “Progress in Language Classroom Research: Evidence from The Modern Language Journal, 1916-2000”. The Modern Language Journal 85.1 (2002): 57-76. … Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Coleman, Loes and Bert Weltens. “Classroom English: Engels als Doeltaal én Instructietaal.” Levende Talen Magazine 530 (1998): 274-8. Cullen, Richard. “Supportive Teacher Talk: The Importance of the ‘F-move’.” ELT Journal 56.2 (2002): 117-28. ... “Teacher Talk and the Classroom Context.” ELT Journal 52.3 (2002): 179-88. De Graaff, Rick and Gerrit-Jan Koopman. “Didactische Richtlijnen bij Tweetalig Onderwijs: Onderzoek naar Didactische Gedragingen van Docenten bij Tweetalig Onderwijs.” Utrecht: Utrecht University/ICO-ISOR, 2006. Direct Method. Ed. Meirion Davies. 9 April 2002. Adran Addysg Education Dept., University of Wales. 16 July 2006. <http://www.aber.ac.uk/~mflwww/seclangacq/langteach5.html> Edelenbos, P. John de Jong and Gerard Westhoff. “Vreemdetalenonderwijs in Nederland: Een situatieschets.” NaB-MVT. March 2004. 21 April 2006 <www.nabmvt.nl/MVTprojecten/publicaties/Vreemdetalenonderwijs_in_Nederland_Een_situatieschets.pdf> Frey, Herschel. “The Applied Linguistics of Teacher Talk.” Hispania 71.3 (1988): 681-6. Genesee, Fred. Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers, 1987. Goossen, Paul. “Doeltaal = Voertaal: Maar Hoe Dan?” Levende Talen Magazine 3 (2002): 8-11.

47

Hermans Laura, Kees van Esch, Piet-Hein van de Ven & Theo Bergen. “Engels spreken op school. Waarom gebeurt dat zo weinig?” Levende Talen Tijdschrift 5.3 (2004): 9-21. Inspectie van het Onderwijs. “Werk aan de Basis: Evaluatie van de Basisvorming na Vijf Jaar.” 5 Sept. 1999. 23 June 2006 <http://www.owinsp.nl/publicaties/9681> Krashen, Stephen D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981. Lightbown, Patsy M. & Nina Spada. How Languages are Learned: Revised Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Luteijn, Wim. “Reactie van een Lezer.” Levende Talen Magazine 8 (2000): 42. Morris, Frank A. & Elaine E. Tarone. “Impact of Classroom Dynamics on the Effectiveness of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition.” Language Learning 53.2 (2003): 325-68. Schmidt, Richard. “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning.” Applied Linguistics 11.2 (1990): 129-58. Swain, Merrill. “A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Second Language Use in Immersion Classrooms.” The Modern Language Journal 79.2 (1995): 166-178. Thornbury, Scott. “Teachers Research Teacher Talk.” ELT Journal 50.4 (1996): 279-90. Van Schaik, Joop. “(Bijna) Vloeiend Frans Spreken.” Levende Talen Magazine 2 (2004): 9-21. Van Schooten, Alex. “Je moet oppassen dat je niet over de hoofden van de leerlingen heen praat: Een Dagje Frans op De Noordgouw.” Levende Talen Magazine 530 (1998): 270-3. Westhoff, Gerard. “Een Leraar met Ondertitels: Achtergronden van de Doeltaal-Voertaalpraktijk.” Levende Talen Magazine 530 (1998): 266-9. Westhoff, Gerard. “Trends in Second Language Pedagogy.” 2003. Willis, Jane. A Framework for Task-based Learning. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited, 2004.

48

Appendix Verbal Strategies Non-verbal Strategies Other Strategies Redundancy Countenance Clear Structure • paraphrase • body language • synonyms • variation in speech Control of Meaning • examples • variation in intonation • repetition Connecting old and new • summary Contextual Support • spelling Improving Output • definition • blackboard • overhead-projector • call and response-

games Adjusted Language Use • film/video • pair-/groupwork • short sentences • reality ¹) • classroom language ²) • active form • maps • few subordinate clauses • demonstrations etc. • simple word-choice ¹) ‘Reality’ means the use of e.g. real texts instead of adjusted ones. ²) ‘Classroom language’ means the use of pre-fabricated sentences to be used in class, such as ‘Can I visit the bathroom’ or ‘I don’t understand’